I am referring solely to the comparison/correlation of revenues to expenses. It doesnt matter how high my revenues are if my expenses are also so high that I can't turn a profit. It doesnt matter if Im talking about a $10 a year business or a 3.3 billion dollar a year professional sports league. The principle is the same.
- Donnie27J

Let it go, Donnie.

I understood the point you were making. It was a pretty simple one (I understood it!).

Some here have a difficulty discerning between revenues and profits.

Can you imagine how good a unicorn would be in the room?

I bet it would also recycle its disposable utensils from the buffet.


- Aetherial

at least it would give Gary a place to sit where he feels comfotable

I am referring solely to the comparison/correlation of revenues to expenses. It doesnt matter how high my revenues are if my expenses are also so high that I can't turn a profit. It doesnt matter if Im talking about a $10 a year business or a 3.3 billion dollar a year professional sports league. The principle is the same.
- Donnie27J

Not true. If you can charge, (and GET) $120 everytime you ship something down the road, you can easily afford to pay the employees 57% of your revenue. Your overhead and other fixed costs would be so low (compared to sales) that you could do it.

That's essentially the situation the Leafs, Habs and Rangers are in.

They could pay their players 65% of revenue and still turn a profit.

That said, it's not true of the majority of the league.

And this time around, the players are not going to think that a cut in salaries is fair.

But a new CBA isn't going to be signed without salary roll-backs - the owners won't agree to any new CBA without a larger chunk of HRR.

It isn't going to be "fair."

It's going to be the best deal that both sides can get.

So quit using the word "fair."

It doesn't belong in the world of labour negotiations. It's an arbitrary, subjective notion.
- Atomic Wedgie

Yes, if both sides lose something, such as the players losing some salary. While the richer teams through revenue sharing help out the lesser teams. Then it is indeed a fair settlement. As both sides are sharing in a partnership for the betterment of the financial health of the League. Right now the League only wants to players to lose something to bail out the struggling teams. Which is an unfair agreement. So using the word fair is indeed accurate.

And this time around, the players are not going to think that a cut in salaries is fair.

But a new CBA isn't going to be signed without salary roll-backs - the owners won't agree to any new CBA without a larger chunk of HRR.
- Atomic Wedgie

It's not necessarily true that a salary rollback has to be part of the transition into the next CBA if the percentage of HRR going to the players declines. It's simply the easiest way to help with compliance. The alternative is to let escrow accomplish the same thing by withholding an even higher percentage of player salaries - but then you still have the issue of how to fit existing cap numbers into the new structure without making things incredibly complex or opening up the system to abuse by teams.

The desire for no rollback makes complete sense. Not only was it signed by both sides with the intention that all dollars would be paid in full [right? If not, someone committed a prima facie violation of Article 26], but the longer a contract goes, the more salary is lost in a flat rollback and the less likely it can be recouped even if revenues increase; current players lose absolutely, and older players or those signed to long-term deals are more negatively affected than younger players or those on short-term deals. Given the choice between a rollback or higher escrow, higher escrow is the better way to go; at least that way, if revenues increase it's more likely the full contracted salary can be realized - and any payment to the owners via escrow is much more likely to be less than the amount lost in a rollback.

The problem from the NHLPA's POV is that it doesn't want either - and that's probably unrealistic. Perhaps the "best" alternative is a hybrid rollback, where salaries in the 1st year decrease by 15%, salaries in year 2 decrease by 10%, salaries in year 3 decrease by 6%, and so on. This smooths the impact of the rollback to help get the immediate desired while still protecting salaries on longer contracts, but theoretically minimizes escrow payments - but it's unlikely the NHLPA would consider this either.

The principles do correlate. That is proven by the very FACT that teams are losing money. Revenue sharing between the teams would really only be needed at a low level if player salaries were not so high. Teams could turn a profit and sustain themselves on their own if expenses (i.e. player salaries) were not so high. If you want the teams/owners to give their money to other teams then why dont players give their money to other players? Because it doesnt and shoudnt work that way. You spout off a lot but do not really present anything. Aren't you the same guy that others were referring to as "the know it all" the other day? I see their point. Good day!
- Donnie27J

No it doesn't correalate. In the NHL you have a partnership between the League and the players. It is not an Owner-employee relationship such as in a regular company. This is a negotiation between how the revenue is divided between the League and the players. It is not a negotiation in how the players divide their share of the revenue between each other.

Let it go, Donnie.

I understood the point you were making. It was a pretty simple one (I understood it!).

Some here have a difficulty discerning between revenues and profits.
- Atomic Wedgie

Some here are having difficulty understanding that this negotiation is about dividing up revenue between the players and the Owners.

Couldn't agree more. What if the owners say, 'ok, we aren't going to have any rollbacks, but we are lowering the cap by 20% effective immediately'.

What will happen? Buyouts galore and guys buried the AHL.

Next summer (and the next few summers), when free agency hits, teams won't be able to afford (most rich teams are at the cap and the poor ones have self-imposed caps) to pay guys what they are actually worth.

So instead of the guys who are locked up now long term (which is the minority), suffering, it will be the guys who have 1-3 year deals in place now (the majority of NHLers).

Either way, the players are going to take a hit. It just depends which players. The guys that got outrageous contracts before this CBA or the guys coming up for contract.

The players really need to wake up here. Take your damn rollback. In principal, it sucks. It's not fair. But in practice, it's either take a rollback, don't play, (or if the owners are dumb enough to continue business has it has been going) kiss 150-200 union jobs goodbye (as teams fold up).
- Charliebox

The Owners don't have the power to lower the Cap by 20% immediately. Let's deal in reality, and not hypothetical fantasy.

Yes, if both sides lose something, such as the players losing some salary. While the richer teams through revenue sharing help out the lesser teams. Then it is indeed a fair settlement. As both sides are sharing in a partnership for the betterment of the financial health of the League. Right now the League only wants to players to lose something to bail out the struggling teams. Which is an unfair agreement. So using the word fair is indeed accurate.
- MJL

In YOUR opinion, which is subjective, that is "fair".

You just demonstrated exactly why fair has no meaning here. In the players' opinion they gave back last time, now the owners should be bailing out their own, THAT is "fair". In the owners' opinion, they assume all the risk and cost and the players make a disproportionate share of the revenues (compared to the other major leagues) and THAT is a big contributing factor to teams losing money, so the correction should come out of the players' pockets.

This is not about fair. This is about fighting for the best deal you can get. Neither side is even remotely concerned about what is "fair" to the other side. It hasn't even crossed their minds. They are after numbers, not unicorns.

I just find it hilarious that our friend from the city of brotherly love actually thinks that the Snider and Jabobs are sitting around drafting a new proposal to the NHLPA, and thinking about "fairness" to the players.
- Atomic Wedgie

I assume your talking in reference to myself? Your making an incorrect interpretation of my statements. Not my problem. Obviously, the Owners of richer teams really are only thinking of their own teams. That's one of the topp reasons why were in a lockout. Doesn't mean that a fair settlement between the League and the players can't be reached. Read the statements of both the Union and the League. Both sides have used the term fair. Maybe you should inform them that the word doesn't belong in the discussion.

Just out of curiosity, when a deal gets reached what will your first post be?
- Pierceme69

Nice post, my feeling exactly. F them all!

The Owners don't have the power to lower the Cap by 20% immediately. Let's deal in reality, and not hypothetical fantasy.
- MJL

They don't have the power to do anything right now. That's why they are negotiating a new CBA.

Right now, a rollback is also 'hypothetical'.

What I'm saying is that the players seem to understand that they are getting too much of the pie, but they don't want a rollback.

Well the alternative to a rollback is to cut the cap.

I assume your talking in reference to myself? Your making an incorrect interpretation of my statements. Not my problem. Obviously, the Owners of richer teams really are only thinking of their own teams. That's one of the topp reasons why were in a lockout. Doesn't mean that a fair settlement between the League and the players can't be reached. Read the statements of both the Union and the League. Both sides have used the term fair. Maybe you should inform them that the word doesn't belong in the discussion.
- MJL

Um, if the owners of RICH teams were only thinking of themselves, we would not be having a lockout.

Think.

In YOUR opinion, which is subjective, that is "fair".

You just demonstrated exactly why fair has no meaning here. In the players' opinion they gave back last time, now the owners should be bailing out their own, THAT is "fair". In the owners' opinion, they assume all the risk and cost and the players make a disproportionate share of the revenues (compared to the other major leagues) and THAT is a big contributing factor to teams losing money, so the correction should come out of the players' pockets.

This is not about fair. This is about fighting for the best deal you can get. Neither side is even remotely concerned about what is "fair" to the other side. It hasn't even crossed their minds. They are after numbers, not unicorns.
- Aetherial

Sure it has. Both sides have used the word numerous times. Do you want to continue arguing over the use of the word fair, or discuss the real issues? Your response here can be argued that it is just as subjective. There won't be an agreement until both sides are satisfied that it is a fair agreement.

Yes, if both sides lose something, such as the players losing some salary. While the richer teams through revenue sharing help out the lesser teams. Then it is indeed a fair settlement. As both sides are sharing in a partnership for the betterment of the financial health of the League. Right now the League only wants to players to lose something to bail out the struggling teams. Which is an unfair agreement. So using the word fair is indeed accurate.
- MJL

And yet MLSEL feels that they already do enough to help the lesser teams, and losing the Coyotes and Blue Jackets would actually improve profitability for the Leafs.

So if the players want to preserve 46 NHLPA jobs, they need to be the ones to pony up the extra dough.

Are you starting to figure out how "fair" is subjective?

Um, if the owners of RICH teams were only thinking of themselves, we would not be having a lockout.

Think.
- Aetherial

Sure we would. There's 30 teams in the League. The richer teams want the players to help out the poorer teams. Without the richer teams giving to the poor.

And yet MLSEL feels that they already do enough to help the lesser teams, and losing the Coyotes and Blue Jackets would actually improve profitability for the Leafs.

So if the players want to preserve 46 NHLPA jobs, they need to be the ones to pony up the extra dough.

Are you starting to figure out how "fair" is subjective?
- Atomic Wedgie

Are you starting to figure out what has to change? So a fair agreement can be reached?

Ek any Habs rumors ?
- sliprock65

Any Habs period.


NO MERCH

They don't have the power to do anything right now. That's why they are negotiating a new CBA.

Right now, a rollback is also 'hypothetical'.

What I'm saying is that the players seem to understand that they are getting too much of the pie, but they don't want a rollback.

Well the alternative to a rollback is to cut the cap.
- Charliebox

They don't have the power to do so even when there is a CBA. The players are negotiating. We'll see what they are willing to accept when the League does it's share.

Sure it has. Both sides have used the word numerous times. Do you want to continue arguing over the use of the word fair, or discuss the real issues? Your response here can be argued that it is just as subjective. There won't be an agreement until both sides are satisfied that it is a fair agreement.
- MJL

OK you win.

Sure it has. Both sides have used the word numerous times. Do you want to continue arguing over the use of the word fair, or discuss the real issues? Your response here can be argued that it is just as subjective. There won't be an agreement until both sides are satisfied that it is a fair agreement.
- MJL

Or the players can sign an agreement they don't think is fair, but they don't want to lose another year of salary.

Or the players can sign an agreement they don't think is fair, but they don't want to lose another year of salary.
- Atomic Wedgie

They sure could. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. .

Sure we would. There's 30 teams in the League. The richer teams want the players to help out the poorer teams. Without the richer teams giving to the poor.
- MJL

The richer teams already give to the poor.

Try to keep up.

(this is a repost from last week. seems very apt)

It is time to understand that a Hockey Fan loves Hockey... not the NHL. sure the NHL is the provider, but just like we have choice in choosing our cell phone company, we have choice in our sports entertainment provider and if we lose trust in out cell phone company, we are the first to complain loudly so all that will hear and move on.







Remember, we love hockey, not the NHL. We love the sport, not the provider.

Let this incarnation of the NHL die by its own sword. I do not want to support a minority of owners who dictate the league though the power of a supermajority while real, significant and important game issues remain unsolved.

And yes, I truly blame the owners. They set up this CBA, they created the pyramid marketing scheme that was NHL-expansion and make decisions based on their bottom line with no regard for the sport of hockey or safety of it players.

The owners may be able to outlast the players. If that’s where it ultimately goes... but they cannot outlast competition in the sports provider market if fans choose to follow a legitimate incarnation of a Hockey league rather than the corporate shill we currently have.



It's almost the NHL has tried to create a monopoly bubble around the NHL where outside economic factors are ignored if the league's 30 teams make money. Here is where the rubber meets the road.... 30 teams will not make money. A small minority will and carry the rest of the loser franchises with them. YES, 30 can, theoretically survive, but so could 32 or 44... but the game suffers horribly.



And what of the well-off franchises?

Why are the Maple Leafs not rewarded for their finacial loyalty but instead need to feed the status quo of the league. One will easily notice that since the new CBA came in, those who were in well-off positions, retained them. Those who were rebuilding AND make money have a huge disadvantage as they must both prop up with team while supporting their competators which drives the status quo and creates an unfair climate when it comes to UFAs.

Another way to say it is: How does Vancouver feel about giving money to Phoenix to Phoenix can sign players in an attempt to beat Vancouver?

And what of the middle of the road franchises? How does Buffalo, St. Louis, Colorado or Minnesota feel when they are established franchises and need payments only to see much of that pot of gold shipped to other groups who only seem to be in the league to flesh out an 82 game schedule?

It is time to change cell phone providers. It is time to create a new League where the bottom line is the sport itself which will intrinsically create a new set of guidelines on player safety, equipment, lenghth of schedule and number of games played.

We love hockey... not the NHL. They are not one and the same thing. As much as they will tell you otherwise, they are not.

They sure could. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. .
- MJL

How about July 2013?